https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281182
--- Comment #1 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-f...@yahoo.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Millard from comment #0)
Hmm. I should have noted a limitation of my experiment with
the patch for the armv7 context. lang/rust's Makefile has:
.if exists(${PATCHDIR}/${ARCH}${BOOTSTRAPS_SUFFIX})
EXTRA_PATCHES+= ${PATCHDIR}/${ARCH}${BOOTSTRAPS_SUFFIX}
.endif
(with appropriate bsd.port.pre.mk and bsd.port.post.mk use)
and it has:
# find files/*/*
files/armv7/patch-compiler_rustc__driver__impl_src_signal__handler.rs
files/armv7/patch-vendor_rustix_src_backend_libc_fs_syscalls.rs
files/riscv64/patch-vendor_openssl-src_src_lib.rs
files/riscv64/patch-vendor_rustc__ap__rustc__target_src_spec_riscv64gc__unknown__freebsd.rs
I did not replicate the files/armv7/ aspect of the structure for my
test. One could imagine that I had used:
files/armv7/third__party_rust_rustix_src_backend__libc_fs_syscalls.rs
instead, with the additional Makefile content. This would avoid using
the patch on anything but armv7, just like lang/rust does via using:
files/armv7/patch-vendor_rustix_src_backend_libc_fs_syscalls.rs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
